Cameras Lense 2.8 vs. 3.5?

[Michael]

Do you guys think one would notice the difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 lense? Last night I was playing with a 28-70mm on my D200 and I coudln't go lower than 4.5--since of course the lense is a 4.5. That bothered me. So, would 3.5 be that much different? How about the different between 2.8 and 3.5?

 

[AhlgrenGraphics]

with a lower lens aperture you can have higher exposure time, but the lower you go the more bluryer the background will be (the none focused part)

 

[Michael]

with a lower lens aperture you can have higher exposure time, but the lower you go the more bluryer the background will be (the none focused part)

Yeah I am aware of the blurry background. You are basically doing away with depth of field. Hmmm...I don't know. I guess one could not really notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.5.

 

[NevadaJack]

Yeah I am aware of the blurry background. You are basically doing away with depth of field. Hmmm...I don't know. I guess one could not really notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.5.

That's only a half stop Michael so really not that important unless you really do a lot of low light interiors and need all the exposure you can get. From f/4 or f/4.5 to f/2.8 then there is a full stop difference and that one could notice. Depending on the lens design the bokeh could be better on the f/4 than the f/2.8 but the bokeh also depends on the distance of the background from the subject.

We are talking about the shooter here and not the results to the viewer of course.